|
Editorium Update 2008/10/16: Review of MadCap Blaze
|
The Editorium
|
Oct 16, 2008 09:52 PDT
|
Thanks for reading Editorium Update! The Editorium does not send
unsolicited email messages. You've received this newsletter because you
subscribed to it or a friend has forwarded it to you. To subscribe or
unsubscribe, see the instructions at the end of this message.
Editorium Update is published by the Editorium, which provides Microsoft
Word macros and other resources for publishing professionals. For more
information, visit us at http://www.editorium.com.
______________________________________________________
EDITORIUM UPDATE
Tips for Publishing Professionals Using Microsoft Word
October 16, 2008
______________________________________________________
CONTENTS
Feature Article: Review of MadCap Blaze
Readers Write: Traditional vs. Electronic Workflow
Resources:
Chapter by Chapter
FreeRice
_____________________________________________________
Want to work smarter? Faster? Better?
Buy my book: Microsoft Word for Publishing Professionals: Power-Packed
Tips for Editors, Typesetters, Proofreaders, and Indexers.
http://tinyurl.com/6djk5r
7 by 10 inches, 632 pages, perfect bound--this baby is *huge* and just
packed with good stuff, nicely organized for easy reference. Please
check it out--and tell your friends. Yes, really! Thanks!
_____________________________________________________
Review of MadCap Blaze
by Jack Lyon
http://www.madcapsoftware.com/products/blaze/
In my previous newsletter, in an article called "Traditional vs.
Electronic Workflow," I wrote:
"Typically, authors write in Word, editors edit in Word, designers and
typesetters work in QuarkXPress or InDesign, and indexers work in SKY
Index, CINDEX, or MACREX. But what's really needed is *one* program that
can handle everything. . . . The combination of InDesign and InCopy is
on the right track, as is the combination of QuarkXPress and Quark
CopyDesk. But neither combination handles indexing well, and neither
combination has all of the necessary editorial tools. An up-and-coming
contender, however, is MadCap Blaze (thank you, Keith Soltys), which
I'll be reviewing in the near future."
Here is that review--from the point of view of someone who is looking
for that all-in-one solution described above. And in many ways, the
creators of MadCap Blaze are basically there. As with any program, there
are still a few small kinks that need to be worked out. But overall,
Blaze is an amazing, XML-based, WYSIWYG publishing solution.
If you're familiar with FrameMaker, and you install the trial version of
Blaze, you'll quickly see that the program was designed from the ground
up as a FrameMaker replacement, with long, complex documents (such as
books and manuals) in mind. It features everything a serious publisher
or writer could want--including:
* Master pages with automatically generated headers and footers.
* Document templates that can be shared with other users.
* Automatically generated tables of contents, figures, and so on.
* High-quality typography.
* Text styles and table styles.
* Conditional text, including variables.
* Cross-referencing.
* Built-in PDF support.
* Topic-based document construction.
* Footnote support.
* Revision tracking.
* A content explorer that lets you see, add, and arrange document
content.
* An excellent help system.
* Embedded index entries that generate and display the index on the fly,
as you're creating it. This is the feature that really won me over.
But to take the coolness factor one step further, MadCap software also
provides their "X-Edit Family"--really an all-in-one, standalone program
with different features for different users:
http://www.madcapsoftware.com/products/xedit/
* Document designers.
* Writers and subject-matter experts.
* Editors and reviewers, who can edit and add comments to existing Blaze
documents. Wisely, MadCap has kept this as a free feature, available to
anyone who wants to download and install the software.
It is really the X-Edit program that makes Blaze an end-to-end
publishing solution. As the company says, "X-Edit removes the need for
two documents, one for content development and another for publishing."
That's so important that I'm going to repeat it: "X-Edit removes the
need for two documents, one for content development and another for
publishing." In other words, no more writing and editing in Microsoft
Word, setting type in InDesign, and indexing in CINDEX. Which means no
more conversion problems, lost text, messed-up formatting, and so on.
MadCap's programs make it possible for writers, designers, and editors
to do what they do best--create great publications--without the hassle
of using different programs for different functions.
The downsides?
* Blaze's inability to use OpenType fonts--something MadCap is trying to
remedy.
* Blaze's inability to handle vertical justification (feathering).
Again, this may be possible in future releases. To be fair, many
designers forbid vertical justification anyway, but if you're dealing
with widows and orphans, it's a nice option to have.
* X-Edit's allowance for writers and editors to use ad-hoc formatting.
MadCap is still debating about whether or not this should continue to be
permitted. In my opinion, it definitely should not. Users (other than
designers) should be restricted to a predefined set of text styles based
on a template created by the document designer, which would avoid having
to clean up extraneous formatting later. At least give us the option.
* The lack of a scripting language and other customization features. To
me, that's a big one that I hope MadCap will eventually address.
Overall, MadCap Blaze is a revolutionary solution to problems that have
long plagued the publishing industry. I strongly encourage you to give
it a try:
http://www.madcapsoftware.com/products/blaze/
____________________________________________________
READERS WRITE
In the previous newsletter, I discussed traditional vs. electronic
workflow. Several readers commented on the article.
-------------------------
Gretchen wrote:
I think one problem is that people trained under the old system are not
really sure what their job should be under the new. For example,
proofreaders skilled at comparing copy A vs copy B may not be sure what
their role is with the new system. Some very skilled at comparing A vs B
might not be as good at the things they need to do with the new.
For freelancers, working for different publishers, it's even more
difficult as each publisher wants something different.
Eventually, all us old geezers will retire and this problem will
disappear. . . until the next generation of publishing emerges.
-------------------------
Virginia Downs wrote:
In the (present) step where the MS is going back and forth between the
editor and the author, everyone I've ever worked for has insisted that
the author see only hard copy. The reason, of course, is so that the
editor knows everything that's been done. Some authors, presented with
electronic copy, will take every opportunity to add to or change the
substance of the material, regardless of the editor's instructions to
the contrary, and many authors cannot or will not use features that call
attention to their changes. This is especially important to university
presses, when the MS has been reviewed and passed by the faculty board,
which might not approve of certain substantive changes. In any case,
it's very time-consuming.
I know there are "compare documents" features in Word, but they get very
cumbersome, in my experience, when there are a lot of changes. It's been
much easier and quicker to keep that stage on paper only.
-------------------------
Judy Stein wrote:
You write:
| | * Not all authors will want to use a template while writing, and some
manuscripts will come in from who-knows-where.
|
This would be the biggie, in my view. Often the entire ms. is written
before it's sold to a publisher, even if that occurs through an agent
(who may submit the ms. to many different publishers).
| | I understand the problem, but I also think that many writers would
welcome some kind of template that just lets them *write* without
worrying about formatting.
|
And frankly, in my experience, too many authors have trouble following
instructions. "Template," no matter how simple, does not equal "without
worrying about formatting." (My best private client, a prolific writer,
would go stark raving bonkers trying to follow a template.)
A given publisher may have a stable of authors that it can train to use
the template at least semi-reliably, but the editor will inevitably have
to spend some time fixing their mistakes. And then there will be all the
*other* authors.
In the real world, for many if not most mss., I think you're going to
have to plan for a formatting step in which a (lower-level) editor feeds
the author's electronic files into the template. And even so, a
higher-level editor may need to check the author's ms. first for
appropriateness of levels of headings and similar details. Most mss. I
copy edit have undergone at least some revisions of this kind by the
in-house editor before I get them.
OK, so the ms. is formatted via template (either by the author or by an
editor) and edited, then sent back to the author to approve the changes.
Many authors make further changes at this stage, sometimes significant
ones; if they haven't already been trained to use the template, they're
likely to foul things up.
Bottom line, with the exception of your stable of trained authors, I
suspect you're better off imposing the template on the ms. file after
all the editing has been done and approved by the author.
-------------------------
Adam C. Engst of "Tidbits" and the "Take Control" books wrote:
We already do something along these lines with our Take Control series
of ebooks. Authors write into a template in Word (which they like), and
that file gets passed to the editor. At some point we export HTML for
use in a collaborative technical review phase using QuickTopic Document
Review, and then we produce a PDF out of Word. There are many things we
dislike about Word, but it's the only program that does all of what we
want in terms of commenting, change tracking, PDF production with links,
and more.
Almost all of what we do, with the exception of one step, is done on the
Mac.
The Editorium wrote:
| | Typically, authors write in Word, editors edit in Word, designers and
typesetters work in QuarkXPress or InDesign, and indexers work in SKY
Index, CINDEX, or MACREX. But what's really needed is *one* program that
can handle everything--including collaborative file sharing so that more
than one production stage can be done at the same time. If such a
program existed, the production process could look like this:
1. The designer creates a template with page, paragraph, and character
styles that will format the different parts of the manuscript.
2. Using the template, the author types the manuscript using the styles
created by the designer, switching back and forth between "draft view"
and "typeset view" as needed. NOTE: Because the styles are predefined by
the designer, the type is basically set automatically as the author
works.
|
Graphics and page breaks are still a bit of a pain.
| | 3. The editor edits the files, switching back and forth between "draft
view" and "typeset view" as needed.
|
There are often several passes between the author and editor. We looked
into Google Docs, which is great for collaboration, but lacks almost all
other necessary features.
| | 4. The author reviews the editor's changes. *At the same time,* the
indexer writes the index. As the indexer works, the entries are
automatically embedded into the files, and the index is automatically
generated and updated based on those entries.
|
We don't do indexes since they don't make economic sense for ebooks that
have full text searching.
| | 5. A proofreader or typesetter checks for and fixes any remaining
widows, bad breaks, or other problems.
|
This is still necessary.
| | 6. An editor reviews any editorial changes the proofreader may have made
and generally ensures that the book is ready for press.
|
We have both the author and editor review the final book after layout
tweaks.
| | In a perfect world, that is. Unfortunately, the program that will handle
all this has yet to be created. The combination of InDesign and InCopy
is on the right track, as is the combination of QuarkXPress and Quark
CopyDesk.
|
And both are really expensive, if you anticipate needing to give every
author a copy of InCopy. Everyone already has Word.
But neither combination handles indexing well, and neither combination
has all of the necessary editorial tools. An up-and-coming contender,
however, is MadCap Blaze (thank you, Keith Soltys), which I'll be
reviewing in the near future.
Looks like this is Windows-only, which makes it problematic for us.
| | I realize that several objections could be raised to the procedure I've
outlined above, including:
* Not all authors will want to use a template while writing, and some
manuscripts will come in from who-knows-where. I understand the problem,
but I also think that many writers would welcome some kind of template
that just lets them *write* without worrying about formatting. I also
*know* that authors need help with structure and consistency, and most
Word processors encourage chaos, at least right out of the box.
|
You're right here - templates are always good.
| | * There's no work or review by a typesetter. Really good typography
requires a lot of hand-tweaking by a professional. But composition
software is getting better all the time; already, with a well-designed
template in InDesign, not much tweaking is needed. If you look at the
old books scanned by Google, you'll see that typography produced today
with virtually no manual intervention far surpasses much of what was
done completely by hand 100 years ago.
|
This isn't a big deal in my view, since most books these days aren't
trying to be works of typographical art. . . . It's a bit of a shame,
but it just takes too long to add this step in.
I've been writing about this crying need for years - see:
http://db.tidbits.com/article/7670
http://db.tidbits.com/article/8489
http://db.tidbits.com/article/8613
http://db.tidbits.com/article/8639
http://www.tidbits.com/
http://www.takecontrolbooks.com/
http://twitter.com/adamengst
Many thanks to Gretchen, Virginia, Judy, and Adam! If you have
questions, hints, or comments you'd like to share, please send an email
message here:
mailto:edi-@editorium.com
_____________________________________________________
RESOURCES
Chapter by Chapter
Chapter by Chapter is one of the coolest Microsoft Word add-ins I've
seen for some time. It replaces Word's unreliable Master Documents and
Document Map features with a slick, stable interface for navigating and
accessing separate documents that (together) make up a book. As the
website says:
------------------------
Chapter by Chapter ("CbC") is a software for novel writers who use
Microsoft Word intensively. It allows managing and organizing chapters
within a book far easier than in Word just because it deals with one doc
file per chapter rather than one big file containing the whole book.
When the book is finished (or whenever the writer wants), CbC generates
that big file.
CbC was developed because the Master Document feature of Word was too
complex and very buggy (it corrupts documents). So, the idea was to
mimic this feature from out of Word with another application running
independently and driving Word.
------------------------
Chapter by Chapter is an amazing piece of work--highly recommended. The
bad news: No Macintosh version. The good news: It's free!
http://pagesperso-orange.fr/sebastien.berthet/cbc/
____________________________________________________
Feed the hungry and test your vocabulary--everybody wins! My high score
is 50. What's yours?
http://www.freerice.org
If you'd like to share a resource that others might find useful:
mailto:resou-@editorium.com
____________________________________________________
HELP WANTED
If you need help with Word, there are actually lots of places to go.
Some of the best include:
Allen Wyatt's WordTips:
http://WordTips.VitalNews.com
The Word-PC List:
http://listserv.liv.ac.uk/archives/word-pc.html
The McEdit list:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/McEdit/
Microsoft's Word discussion groups:
http://www.microsoft.com/office/community/en-us/FlyoutOverview.mspx#13
(Look in the lower right of the page.)
The Word MVP site:
http://word.mvps.org/
Woody's Lounge:
http://www.wopr.com/cgi-bin/w3t/postlist.pl?Cat=&Board=wrd
But if you can't find what you need in those places, send your question
here:
mailto:he-@editorium.com
I'll put your question in the newsletter to see if some astute reader
knows the answer.
_____________________________________________________
I *love* SpamArrest. After unsuccessfully trying to fight the battle
against junk email with a couple of top-notch programs, I decided to try
SpamArrest, and I'm thrilled to say it's actually won the war. Boy, has
my email been quiet! When people send me an email message, they receive
a message in return asking them to click a link to register themselves
(a one-time operation) as someone who can send me email. Spammers, of
course, won't bother to do this, which basically means no more spam!
It's easy to preregister family, friends, associates, and email
newsletters. The online program (no software installed on your computer)
provides complete control over how spam is handled, and it's very easy
to use. You can try SpamArrest for 30 days at no charge. To learn more,
click here:
http://spamarrest.com/affl?1403707
And if you decide to sign up, please do so through that affiliate link.
Your support will help keep Editorium Update alive and kicking. Thanks!
_____________________________________________________
TELL A FRIEND ABOUT EDITORIUM UPDATE
Thanks for subscribing to Editorium Update. We publish the newsletter
free of charge, asking only that you forward it to friends and
associates who might find it useful. (Please get their approval before
you send it.) We'd also appreciate your suggestions for newsletter
articles and improvements. Please email your comments here:
mailto:edi-@editorium.com.
You can read past issues of the newsletter here:
http://www.editorium.com/euindex.htm
_____________________________________________________
THE FINE PRINT
Editorium Update (ISSN 1534-1283) is published by:
The EDITORIUM, LLC
Microsoft Word Add-Ins for Publishing Professionals
http://www.editorium.com
Copyright © 2008 by the Editorium. All rights reserved. Editorium Update
and Editorium are trademarks of the Editorium.
You may manually forward Editorium Update in its entirety to others (but
not charge for it) and print or store it for your own use. Any other
broadcast, publication, retransmission, copying, or storage, without
written permission from the Editorium, is strictly prohibited. If you're
interested in reprinting one of our articles, please send an email
message here: mailto:repr-@editorium.com
Editorium Update is provided for informational purposes only and without
a warranty of any kind, either express or implied, including but not
limited to implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a
particular purpose, and freedom from infringement. The user assumes the
entire risk as to the accuracy and use of this document.
The Editorium is not affiliated with Microsoft Corporation.
_____________________________________________________
HOW TO SUBSCRIBE OR UNSUBSCRIBE
If you haven't subscribed to Editorium Update but would like to, send a
blank email message here: mailto:editorium--@topica.com.
To unsubscribe, send a blank email message here:
mailto:editorium-u-@topica.com.
We do not sell, rent, or give our subscriber list to anyone.
____________________________________________________
|
|
 |
|
